vaccine

Vaccine Mandates for Everyone, Everywhere – A Globally Coordinated Agenda

Technocracy’s endgame to use its ‘science of social engineering’ for the sake of total social control includes the entire field of healthcare, including globally mandated vaccines. ⁃ TN Editor

In the United States, those who are vaccine risk-aware have much to be concerned about right now. More and more states—and many legislators from both political parties—are displaying a willingness to impose heavy-handed vaccine mandates that trample on religiousparental and human rights—including the precious right to “security of person” guaranteed by Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

What some Americans may not realize is that the current push for mandates is playing out not just in the U.S. but in other countries as well, reflecting a broader—and indeed, global—agenda. Countries such as Australia, Italy and France have taken the lead in transitioning away from government interventions that “merely nudge or persuade individuals to vaccinate” and toward a more punitive exercise of “coercive power”—even though research suggests that “tougher stances on the part of doctors and public health experts tend to polarize attitudes in the public.” Australia’s 2016 “no jab, no pay” law, for example, withholds thousands of dollars in childcare subsidies from parents branded as “vaccine refusers,” and some Australian states restrict unvaccinated children’s access to child care altogether.

One of the primary cover stories that governments are using to justify the fierce uptick in vaccine coercion is the argument that infectious diseases pose a threat to national security. Measles represents the overblown threat du jour, while around the world, officials and media keep the public in the dark about the measles vaccine’s risks. In 2014, the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) formed to “elevate global health security as a national and global priority.” One of the eleven “Action Packages” to which GHSA stakeholders agreed was an “Immunization Action Package” that just so happens to use measles vaccine coverage as its proxy indicator for success. Considering that the Action Package’s aim is to marshall regional and global collaboration to “accelerate” vaccine coverage, how should we construe the measles hysteria that international organizations, governments and the media have been fomenting ever since the GHSA’s creation?

… taking the concept of an “interconnected global network” to an entirely new level all sorts of public and private ‘advisory partners’ are also in on the push for unitary action, including various United Nations (UN) agencies, the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank, the African Union (AU), the European Union (EU) and even, somewhat ominously, Interpol.

An interconnected global network

Although generally not in the media spotlight, the GHSA attracted high-level attention and commitments from the powerful from the get-go. Within four months of its February 2014 launch, the GHSA received a key endorsement from the G7, and in September, President Obama hosted the new entity’s first major meeting at the White House. Distracting the public from the earth-shattering revelations of CDC vaccine fraud issued a few weeks earlier by whistleblower William Thompson (on August 27, 2014), GHSA meeting participants instead solemnly declared: “A biological threat anywhere is a biological threat everywhere, and it is the world’s responsibility to respond as one.”

In late 2016, the outgoing President Obama signed an Executive Order that “cemented” the GHSA “as a national, presidential-level priority” and positioned the U.S. “as a committed, long-term catalyst” for executing the partnership’s goals. At present, the GHSA has 67 member countries, but—taking the concept of an “interconnected global network” to an entirely new level—all sorts of public and private “advisory partners” are also in on the push for unitary action, including various United Nations (UN) agencies, the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank, the African Union (AU), the European Union (EU) and even, somewhat ominously, Interpol.

The GHSA promotes external country-level evaluations to assess, among other measures, steps taken to prevent infectious disease threats—with “prevention” defined as “high immunisation coverage”—and improve surveillance (via detection, assessment and reporting of “public health events”). The U.S. was one of the first countries to step up for an assessment, conducted in close collaboration by external evaluators and the CDC. (The CDC head at the time was Thomas Frieden, praised by Obama as “an expert in preparedness and response to health emergencies” but arrested in 2018 on charges of sexual abuse.) The evaluators gave the U.S. top scores for measles vaccine coverage and “national vaccine access and delivery” while awarding lower scores for “dynamic listening and rumour management” and “communication engagement with affected communities.”

Other international initiatives buttress the GHSA, including the WHO-coordinated International Health Regulations (IHR) established in 2005 (a 196-nation accord to “work together for global security”) and Target 3.8 of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which promotes access to “essential medicines and vaccines for all” as part of a push for “universal health coverage” (UHC). Reflecting the globally focused zeitgeist, proponents of these intertwined initiatives are fond of celebrating “more joined-up thinking,” “merging of approaches,” “mutually reinforcing agendas” and “synergy between health system strengthening and health security efforts.”

No accident

At the end of 2014, the EU made a point of declaring vaccination an important public health tool, which the European public health community interpreted as “a crucial step to strengthen EU action supporting Member States…to implement effective immunization policies and programs.” With this groundwork laid, Italy—a G7 member—volunteered to spearhead the GHSA’s Immunization Action Package and also became one of the first countries to ramp up its own vaccine mandates. With massive investments by GlaxoSmithKline in Italy, where better to start than on the home front? Although a change in government initially delayed implementation of the 2017 compulsory vaccination decree, in early 2019, citing a “surge in measles cases,” the government told Italian parents not to bother sending their youngest (under age 6) children to school if unvaccinated, and promised to impose fines of five hundred euros for older unvaccinated children attending school. Likewise, in France, “non-vaccinated children cannot be admitted to any kind of collective institutions such as nurseries, kindergarten, schools or any social activity if they have not complied with the vaccine mandates.”

With the “fortuitous” measles headwinds at their back, there is little doubt that decision-makers view mandated vaccination for school attendance as a winning strategy and that use of this strategy is growing. The WHO has done its part to help the global effort by placing measles front and center in declaring “vaccine hesitancy”—the “reluctance or refusal to vaccinate”—one of the world’s top ten health threats for 2019. Clearly, it is “game on” for those seeking to override national idiosyncracies with a one-size-fits-all global vaccination agenda.

Legislators who are contemplating new mandates but are still willing to exercise a modicum of independent judgment should recognize that we are in a situation with “echoes of WMD”—“there is no international emergency” and “policy is being hi-jacked.” Here are a handful of critical questions that legislators also should consider:

  • First, measles symptoms can arise from either wild-type measles or vaccine strains—and the laboratory testing that is necessary to tell the difference between the two is rarely done. How can experts make consequential policies without more complete information about the proportion of measles cases caused by the vaccine?
  • A related point is that sizeable proportions of individuals affected by “outbreaks,” whether of measles or pertussis, are fully vaccinated. One study (albeit critical of those who do not vaccinate) showed that 55% to 76% of the individuals involved in five large pertussis incidents were fully vaccinated, as were 41% of measles cases reviewed. Study after study documents waning immunity “despite high vaccine coverage.” How can pronouncements about vaccine effectiveness ignore these critical facts?
  • Third, vaccine mandates have spillover effects on the social fabric. What are the ramifications of turning school and day care center administrators into “enforcement agents” who must “pass information about non-compliance to authorities”? What does it mean for a child’s right to an education when mandates exclude unvaccinated children from school “for the duration of their education”?
  • Finally, what about the health care providers who find themselves caught between the proverbial “rock and a hard place”? A study of Michigan nurses who provide vaccine education to parents requesting nonmedical exemptions found that many nurses had far more “complex and nuanced…evaluations of parents’ judgments and feelings about vaccines” than vaccine mandates would allow, in addition to “consistent commitments to respect parents, affirm their values, and protect their rights.” Vaccine mandates shut down the potential for respectful health care interactions.

Pro-vaccine critics of France’s decision to impose harsher vaccine mandates noted at the time that mandates actually fuel further “vaccine hesitancy.” Moreover, by offering significant benefits to “compliers” that are denied to “non-compliers,” policy-makers contribute to a divide-and-conquer environment that pits one group against another. As international researchers recently wrote, “[P]olitical and ethical considerations matter…. Vaccine mandates are not only a population health instrument, but a political one.” The GHSA’s disrespect for individual and national sovereignty promises to worsen these problems while doing little to improve children’s health.

Read full story here…


“© 9/17/19 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.




Ireland Starts Gender Neutral HPV Vaccine For Boys

Judicial Watch exposed the scandal of Merck’s Gardasil vaccine for girls and young women in 2014 as being “linked to thousands of debilitating side effects, according to the government’s own daunting statistics”. Ireland apparently didn’t get the message.

According the Judicial Watch report,

“Since 2007 Judicial Watch has been investigating the Gardasil scandal and exposed droves of government records documenting thousands of adverse reactions associated with the vaccine, including paralysis, convulsions, blindness and dozens of deaths. Based on the records JW published a special report in 2008 detailing Gardasil’s approval process, side effects, safety concerns and marketing practices. Undoubtedly, it illustrates a large-scale public health experiment.”

Whereas Gardasil was originally only offered to young girls, it is now conceived as a ‘gender neutral’ vaccine, thus doubling its potential market. ⁃ TN Editor [/su_note]

The HPV vaccine will be made available to first-year boys in secondary schools in Ireland for the first time from next week.

Until now, boys have not been included in the free human papillomavirus school vaccination programme.

Following a review by the Health Information and Quality Authority, the vaccine is being extended to all first-year secondary school students from the start of September.

Since 2010, girls in the first year of secondary school have been offered a form of the cancer protection, which has now been made more effective to protect against 9 out of 10 types of HPV cancers.

There is a catch up scheme for older girls, but the parents of boys who are above first year in secondary school will have to pay for the vaccine at their GP.

Minister for Health Simon Harris said the decision to provide it for first-year boys only is based on the medical advice available to him.

He said: “All the medical evidence and indeed HIQA’s health technology assessment highlighted the importance of starting with boys in first year.”

Minister Harris added: “For other parents, if you’re child isn’t in first year, you can still go to your GP and get the vaccine that way as well, through paying for it.”

However, he said he “certainly does not rule out a catch-up programme at a later stage”.

HPV is a virus that can cause a range of cancers including cervical cancer in women and penile and anal cancer in men, as well as head and neck cancers.

Around 400 cases associated with HPV are diagnosed here every year, while around 100 people die as a result.

Health Service Executive school vaccination teams will begin visiting secondary schools next week to offer the first of two doses of the HPV vaccine to first year students.

60,000 information booklets and consent forms are being issued to parents in advance.

The uptake rates among girls had fallen to around 50% in 2017, but have increased to around 70% since then following an information campaign, helped by HPV vaccine campaigner Laura Brennan who died in March from cervical cancer at the age of 26.

Speaking at the vaccination launch today, her brother Kevin Brennan said, “Laura poured herself into this campaign, knowing every time she told her story, it had the potential to save a life”.

He said: “The increase in the uptake rates of the HPV vaccine in last year’s first-year girls is bittersweet for us – we’re delighted that Laura has played a part in helping to protect so many more young people from HPV cancers.”

The Director of the HSE National Immunisation Office, Dr Lucy Jessop, said she is “100% confident in the vaccine” which she said provides really good overall protection.

She described the vaccine as “essential to help protect your children against HPV cancers in the future”.

Dr Jessop has encouraged parents to “read the information from the HSE and speak to a trusted health professional, if they have any questions, before signing the consent form for their child”.

Ireland now becomes just one of 20 countries around the world that have introduced a gender neutral HPV school vaccination scheme.

The former President of the National Association of General Practitioners has said the cost of a HPV vaccine for teenage boys who are not eligible for a free HSE vaccination will be “exceptionally expensive”.

Dr Maitiu Ó Tuathail, a Dublin-based doctor, said the roll out of the vaccination to boys in the first year of secondary school “is a very welcome development”.

Read full story here…




CRISPR Horror: Scientists To Edit DNA In Human Sperm

Technocrat purist Gianpiero Palermo states, “If we can wipe out a particular gene, it would be incredible… theoretically, in principal, this would be a major, major benefit to society.” Um, like wiping out humanity? ⁃ TN Editor

First it was human embryos. Now scientists are trying to develop another way to modify human DNA that can be passed on to future generations, NPR has learned.

Reproductive biologists at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City are attempting to use the powerful gene-editing technique called CRISPR to alter genes in human sperm. NPR got exclusive access to watch the controversial experiments underway.

The research is aimed at finding new ways to prevent disorders caused by genetic mutations that are passed down from men — including some forms of male infertility. The team is starting with a gene that can increase the risk for breast, ovarian, prostate and other cancers.

The experiments are just starting and have not yet been successful. But the research raises many of the same hopes — and fears — as editing the DNA of human embryos. Nevertheless, the researchers defend the work.

“I think it’s important from the scientific point of view to investigate in an ethical manner to be able to learn if it’s possible,” says Gianpiero Palermo, a professor of embryology in obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine, who runs the lab where the work is being conducted.

During a recent visit to Palermo’s Andrology Laboratory at Weill Cornell’s Center for Reproductive Medicine, NPR witnessed an experiment attempting to edit a single gene in sperm.

“If we can wipe out a particular gene, it would be incredible,” Palermo says. “Theoretically, in principal, this would be a major, major benefit to society.”

Other scientists who are not involved in the research agree. One of the main goals is to try to understand and possibly prevent male infertility caused by genetic mutations.

“Male infertility is a very common condition,” says Kyle Orwig, a professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. “And there are some diseases that are incredibly devastating to families. And for those diseases, for me, if you could get rid of it, why wouldn’t you get rid of it?”

But others say editing DNA in sperm raises the same troubling questions as editing DNA in embryos. Would it ever be safe to make babies that way? Would it open the door to someone someday trying to make “designer babies”? Should scientists be trying to tinker with the human gene pool in ways that could affect generations to come?

“It doesn’t matter whether you’re manipulating the embryo or you’re manipulating the sperm,” says Françoise Baylis, a bioethicist at Dalhousie University in Canada, who is advising the World Health Organization about gene editing.

Read full story here…




The New Blood Test That Predicts Your Death?

Technocrats invent because they can, without regard for ethical or moral boundaries. Just wait until life and health insurance companies get ahold of these tests to accept or deny coverage.  ⁃ TN Editor

Scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Biology of Ageing have developed a new blood test that can predict whether you’ll die within the next 10 years.

While it’s not exactly the most cheerful thought for a Wednesday morning, one day, all of us will die.

But if you could find out exactly when you’ll die, would you want to know?

Scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Biology of Ageing have developed a new blood test that can predict whether you’ll die within the next 10 years.

The test relies on biomarkers in the blood linked to various factors that appear to affect your risk of death.

To develop the test, the researchers analysed 44,168 participants aged 18 to 109 – 5,512 of who died during follow-up.

An analysis of the participants’ blood revealed 14 biomarkers that were associated with an increased risk of death.

These biomarkers were linked to various factors, including immunity, circulating fat, inflammation and glucose control.

This suggests that in the future, a sample of your blood could be analysed for the presence of these biomarkers, to indicate when you’ll die.

In the study, published in Nature Communications , the researchers, led by Joris Deelen, explained: “We subsequently show that the prediction accuracy of 5- and 10-year mortality based on a model containing the identified biomarkers and sex is better than that of a model containing conventional risk factors for mortality.”

The researchers highlight that further research is needed before a clinical test is available, and this is backed up by experts not involved in the study.

Read full story here…




Vaccine

Vaccine Survey: 45% Of Americans Doubt Safety

The knee-jerk explanation for vaccine ‘deniers’ is that they are ignorant. Vaccine propaganda continuously parrots that the ‘science is settled’ and that all people should be forced to receive vaccinations.  ⁃ TN Editor

The latest measles outbreak that’s gripped communities across the country in recent months pushed the topic of vaccinations (and those who choose to forgo them) right back onto centerstage for many Americans. Now a new survey delving into feelings over immunizations finds the country may be more split on the issue than believed, with 45% of adults admitting to harboring some doubt about the safety of vaccines.

That said, the vast majority — more than eight in 10 surveyed — still view vaccines as effective and continue to support them, despite their concerns.

The survey, funded by the American Osteopathic Association, questioned 2,000 adults and asked doubters the source of their suspicions of the science-supported, long-established safety and importance of vaccinations. Of the nearly half who listed at least one source of doubt over vaccine safety, researchers found the most common sources came from online articles (16%), distrust of the pharmaceutical industry (16%), and information from medical experts (12%).

According to lead researcher Rachel Shmuts, a perinatal psychiatrist, widespread negative attitudes towards vaccines has become a phenomenon caused by human psychology and amplified by social media.

“From an evolutionary perspective, humans are primed to pay attention to threats or negative information,” Dr. Shmuts explains in a media release. “So it makes sense that people hold onto fears that vaccines are harmful, especially when they believe their children are in danger.”

Another factor in this phenomenon is that, since vaccines have effectively banished many once-common and deadly diseases, people fear possible side effects from the vaccines more than the diseases themselves.

“For some, it really might be that vaccines are viewed as the more salient threat,” says Shmuts.

Despite these concerns, 82% of respondents were still generally in favor of vaccines, while 8% showed serious doubts, and 9% said they were unsure.

Many people are uninformed about vaccines. The state of Michigan, for example, ended public education for vaccines in the mid-2000s. This, combined with legislation that allows for vaccine exemptions for religious and philosophical beliefs, led to Michigan being ranked 44th in the country in the number of vaccinated children between the ages of 19 and 35 months in 2015. In 2017, the state launched a new education program about vaccines, and immunization rates increased across all demographics.

Doctors warn that people with doubt only breed more people with doubt, and that can be dangerous when certain diseases require up to 95% of the population to be vaccinated in order to eliminate the threat of those diseases.

Read full story here…




social media

Social Media Is Making Us Dumb, Angry And Addicted

Social media giants have intentionally re-wired the brains of their users in ways similar to drug addicts, as the release of dopamine is stoked by certain predictable triggers. Under addiction, behavior is easily modified. ⁃ TN Editor

A few years ago, I noticed that I really enjoyed reading on airplanes and wondered why. After a bit of reflection, I realized that it was because I wasn’t distracted by the temptation to check a device every now and then, allowing reading to be the kind of immersive experience I once took for granted.

Now I make a point of semi-disconnecting every night, sitting down with a novel and a glass of wine, with my computer and phone out of reach. I try to do the same thing when I’m reading for work instead of pleasure, setting my devices aside so that I can read deeply and really think about things, but it’s always a struggle. And I don’t think that I’m alone.

I’m not suggesting something as simplistic as books good, Internet bad. There’s nothing inherently good about books as such – Das Kapital and Mein Kampf are both books with murderous consequences, and books that obviously did nothing to improve their readers’ critical thinking abilities.

But the capacity for deep reading and deep thinking is a valuable one, and one that is being tossed aside for no particular reason. As Fulford notes, “Universities report that students now avoid signing on for classes in 19th century literature. They realize they can no longer work through Dickens or George Eliot.”

In his classic The System of Freedom of Expression, Yale First Amendment scholar Thomas Emerson wrote:

Freedom of expression is an essential process for examining knowledge and discovering truth. An individual who seeks knowledge and truth must hear all sides of the question, consider all alternatives, test his judgment by exposing it to opposition, and make full use of different minds.

The kind of deep, wide ranging, multipolar community debate that Emerson envisioned as key to our system of freedom of expression is at odds with the surface skimming, tribal, catch phrase-based nature of social media.

It’s unfortunate that social media not only makes such debate more difficult on its platforms, but also, it seems, rewires people’s brains in such a fashion as to make such debate more difficult everywhere else. It is made worse by the fact that Twitter in particular seems to be most heavily used by the very people – pundits, political journalists, the intelligentsia – most vital to the sort of debate that Emerson saw as essential.

In fact, the corruption of the political/intellectual class by social media is particularly serious, since their descent into thoughtless polarization can then spread to the rest of the population, even that large part that doesn’t use social media itself, through traditional channels.

Twitter is also the most stripped down of the social media platforms, and thus the most illustrative of social media’s basic flaws. Just as sad people repetitively pulling the levers on gas station slot machines illustrate the essence of gambling without the distracting glamour of casinos and racetracks, so Twitter, without a focus on “friends” or photos, or other sidelines, displays raw online human political nature at its worst.

Social media is addictive by design. The companies involved put enormous amounts of thought and effort into making it that way, so that people will be glued to their screens. As much as they’re selling anything, they’re selling the “dopamine hit” that people experience when they get a “like” or a “share” or some other response to their action.

We’ve reached the point where there are not merely articles in places like Psychology Today and The Washington Post on dealing with “social media addiction,” but even scholarly papers in medical journals with titles like “The relationship between addictive use of social media and video games and symptoms of psychiatric disorders: A large scale cross sectional study.” One of the consulting companies in the business of making applications addictive is even named DopamineLabs, making no bones about what’s going on.

Nor is this addiction limited to young people. In fact, as a recent article in Wiredby Clive Thompson reported, the evidence is that older people – the middle aged Generation Xers in particular – are the most hooked.

It’s also a terrible way to learn empathy, as the emotional response to one’s behavior, normally displayed in things like facial expressions, body language, and tone of voice, is reduced to text and emojis. Perhaps this is one of the reasons for the shame mobs: To the mobs, their targets don’t really seem human. But while the shame mobs throw their stones in a sort of play, their victims’ lives and careers are ruined in earnest.

People are more likely to believe misinformation on social media because they tend to only read headlines that mesh with their preconceived ideas, and they tend to get and share those headlines from friends, family, or people they see as ideological allies. This makes them less critical and more willing to pass on things that on further thought they would probably recognize as bogus. In addition, of course, social media passes along only tiny niblets of information, allowing and even encouraging people to make assumptions about the background, assumptions that also tend to follow their preconceptions and prejudice.

Read full story here…




Donald Berwick

Donald Berwick: The Radical Technocrat Pushing Single-Payer

Berwick is the radical Technocrat that Democrats are turning to for health care makeover. He “believes passionately in a society ruled by a technocratic elite” where patients should be managed like a herd of animals.

Don’t mistakenly assume that the Technocrat mind is limited to one political party or the other. Technocracy cuts through all political parties and plans on the elimination of them all when it gains total control. ⁃ TN Editor

Donald Berwick is one of the dangerous men Democrats are using to try to make single-payer health care a reality in the United States.

If anyone had doubts about the radical nature of Democrats’ health care agenda, they needn’t look further than the second name on the witness list for this Wednesday’s House Ways and Means Committee hearing on single-payer health care: Donald Berwick of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement.

If that name sounds familiar, it should. In summer 2010, right after Obamacare’s passage, President Obama gave Berwick a controversial recess appointment to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Democrats refused to consider Berwick’s nomination despite controlling 59 votes in the Senate at the time, and he had to resign as CMS administrator at the end of his recess appointment in late 2011.

Berwick’s History of Radical Writings

Even a cursory review of Berwick’s writings explains why Obama’s only option was to push him through with a recess appointment, and why Democrats refused to give Berwick so much as a nomination hearing. As someone who read just about everything he wrote until his nomination—thousands of pages of journal articles, books, and speeches—I know the radical nature of Berwick’s thinking all too well. He believes passionately in a society ruled by a technocratic elite, thinking that a core group of government planners can run the country’s health care system better than individual doctors and patients.

Here is what this doctor believes in, in his own words:

  • Socialized Medicine: “Cynics beware: I am romantic about the National Health Service; I love it. All I need to do to rediscover the romance is to look at health care in my own country.”
  • Control by Elites: “I cannot believe that the individual health care consumer can enforce through choice the proper configurations of a system as massive and complex as health care. That is for leaders to do.”
  • Wealth Redistribution: “Any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized, and humane must—must—redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and less fortunate.”
  • Shutting Medical Facilities: “Reduce the total supply of high-technology medical and surgical care and consolidate high-technology services into regional and community-wide centers … Most metropolitan areas in the United States should reduce the number of centers engaging in cardiac surgery, high-risk obstetrics, neonatal intensive care, organ transplantation, tertiary cancer care, high-level trauma care, and high-technology imaging.”
  • End of Life Care: “Most people who have serious pain do not need advanced methods; they just need the morphine and counseling that have been available for centuries.”
  • Cost-Effectiveness Rationing of Care: “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care—the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”
  • Doctors Putting “The System” over their Patients: “Doctors and other clinicians should be advocates for patients or the populations they service but should refrain from manipulating the system to obtain benefits for them to the substantial disadvantage of others.”
  • Standardized “Cookbook Medicine”: “I would place a commitment to excellence—standardization to the best-known method—above clinician autonomy as a rule for care.”

For those who want a fuller picture of Berwick’s views, in 2010-11 I compiled a nearly 30-page dossier featuring excerpts of his beliefs, based on my comprehensive review of his prior writings and speeches. That document is now available online here, and below.

Read full story here…




Google Being Sued Over Illegally Obtained Health Records

University of Chicago Medical Center conspired to sell sensitive health records of patients to Google, violating HIPPA and privacy laws. The lawsuit notes, this is “likely the greatest heist of consumer medical records in history.”

Google has been sucking up medical records for several years. In 2016, New Scientist discovered that Google secured access to 1.6 million patient records from the UK’s National Health Service.  ⁃ TN Editor

A former University of Chicago medical patient filed a class-action lawsuit against the University of Chicago and Google, claiming that the University of Chicago Medical Center is giving private patient information to the tech giant without patients’ consent.

About two years ago, the university medical center partnered with Google with the hope of identifying patterns in patient health records to help predict future medical issues.

Now, former patient Matt Dinerstein is filing a lawsuit on behalf of the medical center’s patients, alleging that the university violated privacy laws by sharing sensitive health records with Google from 2009 to 2016, aiding Google’s goal of creating a digital health record system, according to the Chicago Maroon.

The suit alleges that the university deceived its patients by telling them that their medical records would be protected, but ultimately violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), a federal law that ensures privacy and security for personal medical data. It also claims that UChicago violated state laws in Illinois that makes it illegal for companies to participate in dishonest client practices.

The complaint details Google’s alleged two-part plan: obtain the Electronic Health Record (EHR) of almost every patient at the UChicago Medical Center, then use the information to create its own lucrative commercial EHR system.

“While tech giants have dominated the news over the last few years for repeatedly violating consumers’ privacy, Google managed to fly under the radar as it pulled off what is likely the greatest heist of consumer medical records in history,” the complaint stated. “The compromised personal information is not just run-of-the-mill like credit card numbers, usernames and passwords, or even social security numbers, which nowadays seem to be the subject of daily hacks.”

“Rather, the personal medical information obtained by Google is the most sensitive and intimate information in an individual’s life, and its unauthorized disclosure is far more damaging to an individual’s privacy.”

Dinerstein’s lawsuit claims that EHRs contain patient information ranging from height and weight to diseases they carry such as AIDS or diabetes and medical procedures they have undergone.

The medical records include the demographics of patients, along with their diagnoses, prescribed medicine, and past procedures, the lawsuit alleges. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, HIPAA protects patients’ “individually identifiable health information,” which includes “demographic data, that relates to…the individual’s past, present or future physical or mental health or condition, the provision of health care to the individual, or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to the individual.”

“The disclosure of EHRs here is even more egregious because the University promised in its patient admission forms that it would not disclose patients’ records to third parties, like Google, for commercial purposes,” the lawsuit continued. “Nevertheless, the University did not notify its patients, let alone obtain their express consent, before turning over their confidential medical records to Google for its own commercial gain.”

Google detailed its use of EHRs, including ones obtained from the University of Chicago, in a 2018 research paper. The Big Tech company claimed that there are no privacy concerns because the records did not include the identities of patients.

Although Google claims to lack the personal identity associated with each set of information, the complaint calls this a “false sense of security” for patients, since Google’s comprehensive data-mining abilities, along with the time and date of each treatment and notes from medical providers that the records allegedly contained, allow them to identify each individual.

“While this type of public misinformation campaign may be expected from a tech company that has been known to play fast and loose with the information of its customers, the fact that a prominent institution like The University of Chicago would act in such a way is truly stunning,” the complaint said.

According to the lawsuit, Google has been interested in using algorithms to predict looming health issues. To gain the necessary information, Google first developed a personal health information storage platform that it later discontinued because few consumers participated. The company then bought DeepMind, a startup that uses artificial intelligence (AI) to study health care, reported the Chicago Tribune.

Read full story here…




Technocrat Scientists Look To Create Human-Monkey Chimeras

Technocrats who believe that humans are just animals like every other animal, see no problem in crossing species by genetic modification. Transhumans go one step further by claiming to control evolution, creating Humans 2.0. ⁃ TN Editor

The monkeys in Douglas Munoz’s Kingston lab look like other monkeys.

They socialize and move around and eat and drink in the same way. They don’t fall over or stagger around. In fact, the only thing separating the macaques from their unaltered lab mates is the elevated level of a specific human protein implanted inside their brains — proteins that accumulate in the brains of humans with Alzheimer’s disease.

The monkeys have been injected with beta-amyloid, a molecule that, in high-enough amounts, is toxic to human brain tissue.

Munoz and collaborators are studying the earliest changes in those monkey cerebrums. Normally it takes several decades for Alzheimer’s to unfold in human brains. The researchers don’t have that kind of time. The injections speed things up.

If left alone, eventually the monkeys will start to show signs of Alzheimer’s. They make more mistakes on memory tasks and their reaction time slows.

Alzheimer’s research relies heavily on rodents. Munoz is trying to develop a monkey model of Alzheimer’s, because one of the biggest reasons for the staggering string of flops in the search for an effective treatment for the brain-ravaging disease is the species gap. The rat brain is a long way away from the human brain. Not so much a monkey’s.

Munoz, Canada Research Chair in neuroscience at Queen’s University, has reported his work using brain molecules. Others are implanting monkeys with fragments of human brain tissue extracted from people who died with Alzheimer’s.

Now, however, some are going further, and proposing the creation of human-monkey chimeras — part-human beings with entire portions of the brain, like, say, the hippocampus, entirely human derived.

For Munoz, the idea of biologically humanizing large portions of a monkey’s brain is  seriously unnerving. “To be honest, it just really ethically scares me,” he said. He believes in animal research as a fundamental way of understanding how the brain works. However, “For us to start to manipulate life functions in this kind of way without fully knowing how to turn it off, or stop it if something goes awry really scares me.”

However, in a new book on the science and ethics of chimeras, Yale University researchers say it’s time to explore, cautiously, the creation of human-monkey chimeras.

“The search for a better animal model to stimulate human disease has been a ‘holy grail’ of biomedical research for decades,” they wrote in Chimera Research: Ethics and Protocols.

“Realizing the promise of human-monkey chimera research in an ethically and scientifically appropriate manner will require a co-ordinated approach.”

To some, that may seem all fine and good. However, some scientists aren’t waiting for the ethics to be worked out.

In April, Chinese researchers announced they had inserted  a human brain gene into monkey embryos, a gene critical for human brain development.The experiment provoked revulsion, and fascination. Ethicists and philosophers condemned it as hugely morally risky, while the scientists behind the work are said to be keen on implanting even more human genes into monkey embryos, including one presumed to play a role in human intelligence.

Read full story here…




mercola

Boom: Google Crushes Traffic To Mercola.com By 99%

Sir Francis Bacon first said in 1597, “Knowledge is power”, which has since become Google’s unspoken credo. By controlling what gets to your eyes, ears and mind, Google can control you and everyone else. 

Mercola.com is the #1 alternative and health-related site in the world, with a global rank of 6,335 of most traffic sites, receiving over 13 million visits per month. 48% of this traffic is from organic searches from engines like Google. However, Mercola has also been banned from Pinterest and shadow-banned by other social media. ⁃ TN Editor

Over the years, the government and business monopolies, including the likes of Big Tech, have formed a global alliance hell-bent on protecting and concentrating member profits. The price for keeping business going as usual is personal liberty and freedom of speech that may impact these fascist government-industrial complexes.

The major industries colluding to take over the government and government agencies include banking, military, agriculture, pharma, media and Big Tech.

The leaders of these industries have organized strategies to buy off politicians through lobbying and to capture regulatory agencies through revolving door hiring strategies and paid-for media influence through advertising dollars.

Big Tech has joined the movement, bringing in a global concentration of wealth to eliminate competition and critical voices — voices that bring awareness to the frightening future as our rights, freedoms and competition erode into a fascist sunset, all disguised as a means to protect you from “misinformation.”

This year, we’ve seen an unprecedented push to implement censorship across all online platforms, making it increasingly difficult to obtain and share crucial information about health topics. If you’ve been having difficulty finding articles from my website in your Google searchers of late, you’re not alone.

Google traffic to Mercola.com has plummeted by about 99% over the past few weeks. The reason? Google’s June 2019 broad core update, which took effect June 3,1 removed most Mercola.com pages from its search results. As reported by Telaposts.com:2

“The June 2019 Google Broad Core Algorithm Update impacted the rankings of websites in Google’s Search Engine Results Pages. Several aspects of the algorithm were changed which caused some sites to gain visibility and others to lose visibility.

Generally speaking, sites negatively impacted will see a drop in rankings for many or all of important keywords or key phrases which they used to rank well for … The June 2019 Google Broad Core Algorithm Update impacted sites across the web, however, I am personally seeing the most impact on News and Health sites.”

Mercola.com targeted in Google’s latest core algorithm update

Now, any time you enter a health-related search word into Google, such as “heart disease” or “Type 2 diabetes,” you will not find Mercola.com articles in the search results. The only way to locate any of my articles at this point is by searching for “Mercola.com heart disease,” or “Mercola.com Type 2 diabetes.”

Even skipping the “.com” will minimize your search results, and oftentimes the only pages you’ll get are blogs, not my full peer-reviewed articles. Negative press by skeptics has also been upgraded, which means if you simply type in my name none of my articles will come but what you will find are a deluge of negative articles voicing critiques against me in your searches. Try entering my name in Yahoo or Bing and you will see completely different results.

As explained by Telapost,3 a core update “is when Google makes several changes to their main (core) algorithm.” In the past, Google search results were based on crowdsource relevance. An article would ascend in rank based on the number of people who clicked on it.

Traditionally, if you produced unique and high-quality content that matched what people were looking for, you were rewarded by ranking in the top of search results. You would find Mercola.com near the top of nearly any health search results.

So, let’s say one of my articles on diabetes was seventh on the page for your search; if more people clicked on that link than, say, an article listed in third or fifth place, my article would move up in rank. In a nutshell, Google search results were, at least in part, based on popularity.

That’s no longer the case. Instead, Google is now manually lowering the ranking of undesirable content, largely based on Wikipedia’s assessment of the author or site.

Wikipedia’s founder and anonymous editors are well-known to have extreme bias against natural health content and authors. Google also contributes heavily to funding Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is near the top of nearly all searches — despite the anonymous aspect of contributors. Who better to trust than a bunch of unknown, unqualified contributors?

Wikipedia’s co-founder even admits these bad actors have made it a “broken system.”4 Why would Google give such credibility to a platform that even its own founder says is broken and overrun with bad actors?

Another major change was Google’s 2019 quality rater guidelines,5,6 released May 16. What are these guidelines? As explained by Telapost:7

“Google hires ‘quality raters,’ people who visit websites and evaluate their quality. Their feedback doesn’t directly impact your site; it goes to engineers who update the Google algorithm in an effort to display great websites to their users. The guidelines give us great insight as to what Google considers a quality web page.”

One significant change: Google now buries expert views if they’re deemed “harmful” to the public. As explained by The SEM post:8

“There has been a lot of talk about author expertise when it comes to the quality rater guidelines … This section has been changed substantially … [I]f the purpose of the page is harmful, then expertise doesn’t matter. It should be rated Lowest!”

Google used to rank pages based on whether an author could prove their expertise based on how many people visited a page or the number of other reputable sites that linked to that page. No more.

As you may have noticed, we’ve stayed on top of this, even creating a peer review panel of medical and scientific experts that review, edit and approve most articles before they’re published. This is in addition to my own medical expertise as a board-certified physician.

My articles are also fully referenced, most containing dozens of references to studies published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Alas, none of this now matters, as the very fact that the information I present typically contradicts industry propaganda places me in the lowest possible rating category.

Bait and switch

Different perspectives are essential to a healthy debate of ideas. When our voices are censored humanity loses and fascism wins. Pinterest has banned me, Google has mostly erased my information and many others are experiencing this same censorship. What makes me so dangerous to these industries that they need to censor me from those looking for my information?

Google had the brilliant idea of utilizing crowd sourcing, providing the best answers to your questions by pushing the most frequently selected content to the top of the search results — a truly democratic system to reward people for sharing information, and helping you locate this information by essentially sharing the most popular, highest quality content.

My information was frequently at the top of many health searches, because many people like you found it to be the most valuable. But as Google’s power grew to enormous proportions, the goal of providing this service to you changed. The goal now is to become even more powerful by uniting with other powerful industries and government to force their beliefs on the masses and manipulate the future itself.

Crowd sourcing has become crowd control. Google began by giving you everything you want so it can now take everything you have. Google has changed from looking at users as customers and giving them what they want, to making users custodians of their will — essentially making you a host of a virus to carry out their agenda.

Google has become the ultimate puppet master, infecting people and manipulating them without even knowing it. Their true goal is to be in complete control of all of us, directing our behavior — and should we rebel, they also have partnered with the military to create drones utilizing artificial intelligence to ensure resistance will be defeated.

Read full story here…